PDA

View Full Version : walking a jumper in-goal....



didds
22-03-08, 16:03
seeing an advert on TV this morning whilst in the gym for my triathlon training (name drop ;-) made me think.,...


scenario: red attacking, blue defending, red 5m lineout ie 5m from blue tryline.
red "supported" jumper catches ball, but instead of bringing jumper to ground (as normal), or red playing the ball OTT (also quite normal), instead red contoinue to hold the jumper high in the air, with ball and the jumping pod WALK IN-GOAL.
Now - blue cannot play the man in the air with the ball, and neither can they play the supporters that are holding the player in the air (otherwise it would be a standard lineout defence anyway ie take away the supporters) as it is dangerous play.

Forgetting the palaver that it may or may not be easy to then convert the ball 12 feet in the air into a grounded ball in goal, why can't a team do what red has done in my scenario above? Have I just exposed a brand new tactic?!!!! (shurely shome mishtake? Ed.)

didds

David J.
22-03-08, 16:03
Law 19.9 (l):
Lowering a Player. Players who support a jumping team mate
must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been
won by a player of either team.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Phil E
22-03-08, 21:03
LOL, this conjurs up an image of players prancing around the field like refugees from strictly come dancing. :D

didds
23-03-08, 10:03
Law 19.9 (l):
Lowering a Player. Players who support a jumping team mate
must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been
won by a player of either team.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

i knew it couldn;t be that easy!!

:-)

thanks david!

didds

chopper15
23-03-08, 14:03
i knew it couldn;t be that easy!!

:-)

thanks david!

didds

Law 19 is only peculiar to lines out, what if the did it during an ensuing maul?

didds
23-03-08, 15:03
hmmm.. down... then straight up agaiun...


???

didds

Gareth-Lee Smith
23-03-08, 19:03
Man on his feet is king?

Ping the fellow for misconduct (inciting a penalty)?

chopper15
24-03-08, 00:03
Man on his feet is king?

Ping the fellow for misconduct (inciting a penalty)?



Spoil sport! Why aren't you refs a bit more mischievous?

Like next time you ref and the ball goes higher than the posts don't award it!

Just smile and casually say to the capt. and TJ's, the law specifically states that the ball must go 'between the posts'?

Think of any more?

David J.
24-03-08, 01:03
Easy. Ping for dangerous play.

Gareth-Lee Smith
24-03-08, 01:03
Chopper, then rugby clubs would just do what Wednesbury RUFC have done, and have enormous rugby posts that you can't possibly kick higher than. 33.54m, to be exact.

However, seeing as the ball only has to 'cross the crossbar', they probably wouldn't have to bother.

Phil E
24-03-08, 01:03
Just smile and casually say to the capt. and TJ's, the law specifically states that the ball must go 'between the posts'

But the law doesnt state that the height of the posts finishes at the physical top of the poll. In other words, the uprights extend to an infinite point.

beckett50
24-03-08, 10:03
Spoil sport! Why aren't you refs a bit more mischievous?

Like next time you ref and the ball goes higher than the posts don't award it!

Just smile and casually say to the capt. and TJ's, the law specifically states that the ball must go 'between the posts'?

Think of any more?

This from a bloke that likes to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons:rolleyes: :=

I'd hate to think what stick you'd give if I did such thing at a game you were watching:D

Of course, there is always the disallowed kick because - whilst the ball may have passed between the uprights (and above the bar) - the uprights had (over time) become so bent out of shape that if one imagined a perpendicular post then the ball would have a passed outside the plane!:rolleyes:

Phil E
24-03-08, 13:03
This from a bloke that likes to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons:rolleyes: :=

I wonder what would actually happen if you strolled into Trafalgar Square with a cat under your arm and ..............................................

Assuming Ken Liveingstone hasnt had all the pidgeons transported to Australia for not paying the congestion charge!

OB..
24-03-08, 15:03
I think all the pigeons are illegally inside the Low Emission Zone.

chopper15
24-03-08, 21:03
Chopper, then rugby clubs would just do what Wednesbury RUFC have done, and have enormous rugby posts that you can't possibly kick higher than. 33.54m, to be exact.

However, seeing as the ball only has to 'cross the crossbar', they probably wouldn't have to bother.



Exactly, Gareth, the ball only needs to pass over the crossbar. Many years ago post heights were status symbols, no more than that!

By inserting 'and between the posts' without qualifying that the posts height are 'deemed to infinity' restricts the goal-scoring window to the material height of the posts, in Wednesbury's case 33.4m, minus the ht. to the top of the CB.

The infinity mention used to be included in the laws, but no longer, so I'm afraid you refs. will have to rely on 'refs' rote' ie. ignore literal meaning eg. like feet/foot when touch is concerned, when we know it's body parts the laws are actually referring to????!!!!

OB..
25-03-08, 01:03
The infinity mention used to be included in the laws,
When?

so I'm afraid you refs. will have to rely on 'refs' rote' ie. ignore literal meaning
You use a restrictive interpretation of "between" that is not appropriate in these examples from elsewhere in the laws:

Law 10.2 (c) [] Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is
between the 15-metre line and the touchline
The offence might have taken place in the air above the ground where the lines are.

Law 19 Lineout definition: The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw in between two lines of players.
It can go completely over the heads of the players in the lineout and still be a valid throw.

Law 20.6 (b) The scrum half must hold the ball with both hands, with its major axis parallel to the ground and to the touchline over the middle line betweenthe front rows, mid-way between knee and ankle.
His leg bones would get in the way.


eg. like feet/foot when touch is concerned, when we know it's body parts the laws are actually referring to????!!!!
Who is this "we" you refer to?

Phil E
25-03-08, 09:03
eg. like feet/foot when touch is concerned, when we know it's body parts the laws are actually referring to????!!!!


Who is this "we" you refer to?

The Royal "we"?

Law 19, Definitions, does not state feet/foot. I believe foot is mentioned later in Law 19 because that is probably the most obvious part of the body to touch the line.

"The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or
the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the
touchline is where it went into touch."

chopper15
25-03-08, 13:03
The Royal "we"?

Law 19, Definitions, does not state feet/foot. I believe foot is mentioned later in Law 19 because that is probably the most obvious part of the body to touch the line.

"The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or
the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the
touchline is where it went into touch."



Should you and/or OB want to be excluded from 'we' so be it? You'll have discussion probs tho'!

More importantly, Phil, was it your intention to ignore the pertinent feet/foot in the remaining Defs or was it just an oversight?

So what don't you agree with in this 'ref. rote' version? ( ie. The refs' interpretation compared with the restrictions imposed by the literal translation)


REF. ROTE Version.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a
body part on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

If a player has a body part in the field of play and a body part in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by
a player who has a body part in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing
area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, a body part must land in the
playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

Phil E
25-03-08, 13:03
The first definition says ball carrier, that sets the standard.

Body part is an awful phrase to use, it conjours up images of various body parts being littered all over the pitch!

PaulDG
25-03-08, 14:03
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has a body part in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

I'm afraid that rephrasing doesn't work, Chopper.

The player mustn't have any of his body parts touching the touch line, touch-in-goal line or the ground beyond touch.

i.e. all of his relevant "body parts" must be in the field of play (or if outside it, not touching anything) not "a body part"...

Davet
25-03-08, 14:03
REF. ROTE Version.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a
body part on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

If a player has a body part in the field of play and a body part in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by
a player who has a body part in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing
area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, a body part must land in the
playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

Chopper.

1) Body part is just irelevant. The Law says the ball is in touchj if it or a player carrying it touches anything on or beyond the touchline. It doesn't matter if the player touches that thing with arms, legs, or bumpsadaisy.

2) It doesn't matter if the catching player lands with a part of his body in the field of play - if another bit is out of play then he is out of play. See 1 above.

OB..
25-03-08, 14:03
I don't think there is a problem when the player is in contact with the ground. As Davet says, anything touching will do.

The problem arises if the player is in the air. That seems to unresolved, since Mark Lawrence and the corpus of England TJs disagree.

chopper15
25-03-08, 15:03
Quote: with apologies to Davet;

Ref. IRB LAWS

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a
foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by
a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the
playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

Chopper.

1) Foot/feet are just irelevant. The Law says the ball is in touchj if it or a player carrying it touches anything on or beyond the touchline. It doesn't matter if the player touches that thing with one foot, two feet, arms, legs, or bumpsadaisy.

2) It doesn't matter if the catching player lands with one or two feet in the field of play - if another bit is out of play then he is out of play. See 1 above.



OK, now Davet, OB? You agree?

OB..
25-03-08, 16:03
chopper15 - the bits you quoted are all special circumstances. The general statement comes just before that:

The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or
the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

No mention of feet.

What point are you trying to make?

chopper15
25-03-08, 22:03
chopper15 - the bits you quoted are all special circumstances. The general statement comes just before that:

The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or
the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

No mention of feet.

What point are you trying to make?



Is foot/feet to be taken literally or will knees or backside do just as well?

Phil E
25-03-08, 22:03
Chopper

Your just winding us up now aren't you?

chopper15
25-03-08, 22:03
Chopper

Your just winding us up now aren't you?



No, Phil, I'm not! I seem to have got my threads crossed! (Not for the first time I hear you all say!)

If you refer to 'When is a ball in the air in touch?' No 51, which I despatched the same time as yours I think that'll answer your query!

Davet
28-03-08, 14:03
Chopper

Read the whole Law, not just a selected bit.

The foot feet thing you quote is wholly compatible with the all-embracing fact that the ball is in touch if it, or a player carrying it touches anything which is itslef in touch, with any part of the body.

The bits you quote do not exclude other parts, they simply confirm, in a realistic scenario what the law is.

You seem to be saying that because part of the Law referes specifically to feet that other body parts don't matter. That's simply wrong.

If the law said that whenever it rained it was illegal to go out bare-hreaded, and then elsewhere said that you must wear a hat if it rained on a Tuesday; that would not suggest that on other days of the week you could go bare-headed in the rain. Simply that on other days you would have the choice of a hat, hood, scarf etc.

Phil E
28-03-08, 14:03
If the law said that whenever it rained it was illegal to go out bare-hreaded, and then elsewhere said that you must wear a hat if it rained on a Tuesday; that would not suggest that on other days of the week you could go bare-headed in the rain. Simply that on other days you would have the choice of a hat, hood, scarf etc.

Nobody told me that Tuesdays were different!
What page is that on?

OB..
28-03-08, 14:03
According to THHGTTG it is Thursdays that are a problem.

SimonSmith
28-03-08, 14:03
The foot feet thing you quote is wholly compatible with the all-embracing fact that the ball is in touch if it, or a player carrying it touches anything which is itslef in touch, with any part of the body.

I don't like this piece of law.

Not every club has touchline ropes, and spectators can be crowding the touchline.

Away team Winger is haring down the line, and stays in the FOP, with a discernible gap between him and the line. Home team Spectator reaches out and touches him. Doesn't push him or hit him, just touches him.

Who'd give a line out?

Phil E
28-03-08, 14:03
I don't like this piece of law.

Not every club has touchline ropes, and spectators can be crowding the touchline.

Away team Winger is haring down the line, and stays in the FOP, with a discernible gap between him and the line. Home team Spectator reaches out and touches him. Doesn't push him or hit him, just touches him.

Who'd give a line out?

Materiality.................Contextual Judgement..............Play On.

Just got sent some law questions by the RFU Referee Ezine. Try this one:

Question 2
Red 14 is running down the wing and as he reaches the opposition 10 metre line a spectator trips him up. What do you do?

If you have already read it you can't enter.

dave_clark
28-03-08, 15:03
i'd make a decision as to what would (probably) have happened next. if there was no cover, and the winger had proven himself quick enough, i'd give a penalty try. if not, my first thoughts would be to give a penalty to red but i suspect that a scrum to red would actually be the correct decision...

assuming i thought quickly enough of course - in reality i'd probably dither a bit :)

plus having the spectator removed, but i guess that goes without saying.

Davet
28-03-08, 15:03
You may have to intervene to save the spectator from the justifiable wrath of other spectators.

Personally I'd go have cup of tea first.

tim White
28-03-08, 15:03
Shoot the significant spectator, have two cups of tea, award scrum to red AFTER moving all spectators.; Award self two pints. Complete a report for League committee.

Dixie
28-03-08, 16:03
Player assaulted due to failure of home club to abide by RFU regs on technical areas etc, with resultant danger to players. Abandon game in the interest of players H&S. Away team victory. Write report and wait to be fired.

Rawling
28-03-08, 17:03
There's an IRB ruling on this somewhere... possibly referenced in the "ball hits physio" thread?

Phil E
28-03-08, 17:03
Player assaulted due to failure of home club to abide by RFU regs on technical areas etc, with resultant danger to players. Abandon game in the interest of players H&S. Away team victory. Write report and wait to be fired.

Your not taking this seriously are you? :wait:

OB..
28-03-08, 18:03
There's an IRB ruling on this somewhere... possibly referenced in the "ball hits physio" thread?
RULING 2: 2005
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee
April 2005
The FFR has requested a ruling with regard Law 6-Match Officials
Law 6 A.12 stipulates for "a ball in the in-goal touched by a non player". In such situation, the referee considers what would have had occurred after this incident and will blow for a try or a touch in goal where the ball would have been grounded.
However, nothing is stipulated in the event of a person who is not a player touching the ball, intentionally or not, in the field of play or hinders the ball carrier or any other player who is in the position to intervene in the play. Would you please rule on the following scenarios.
1. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) unintentionally touches the ball or unintentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
2. A person from the technical staff (coach, physio, doctor, water carrier) intentionally touches the ball or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
3. An exterior element (spectator) unintentionally or intentionally touches the ball or unintentionally or intentionally hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
4. An exterior element (animal) touches the ball or hinders the ball carrier or a player in a position to play the ball.
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:
Rulings
1. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.
2. The above scenario in 1. is applied whether it was intentional or unintentional.
3. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.
4. The above scenario in 3. is applied.

Phil E
28-03-08, 18:03
That would seem to go with the answer given in the ezine, although quoting a different law:

Question 2
Award a scrum to red 5 metres in from touch opposite where the trip took place.
Law 20.4 (d). After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Dixie
28-03-08, 18:03
Your not taking this seriously are you? :wait:Sorry Phil. As an ex-winger, I was busy daydreaming and thinking about how to keep my kit clean.

Dickie E
28-03-08, 22:03
RULING 2: 2005

1. The referee shall judge what would have happened next. If either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.


I don't understand what this means. Is it saying:

The referee shall judge what would have happened next and apply those conditions. If the referee is unable to decide what would happen next and if either team gain an advantage, play will be brought back for a scrum with the team in possession at the time of the event to have the throw-in.

Dixie
28-03-08, 23:03
Dickie, as I read it the ref decides whether either team gained an advantage from the event in any of the four scenarios. He decides this by reference to what would have happened in the absence of the event. If an advantage os gained, then he awards a scrum to the team in possession at the time of the event.

As was pointed out in a recent thread elsewhere, in the event of a kick ahead touching a non-player, it may prove difficult to decide who was in possession at the time.

Dickie E
28-03-08, 23:03
OK.

So ball carrier charging down touchline and touched, but only lightly, by spectator. Play on.

But what happens if the player stumbles, goes to ground, regains his feet and then scores the try? His opposition has clearly gained an advantage by the contact so back for scrum?

OB..
29-03-08, 01:03
How does a player benefit from being impeded?
How does the opposition benefit from being unable to stop the try?

Dickie E
29-03-08, 02:03
maybe the try would have been scored in a better location

Davet
30-03-08, 12:03
But what happens if the player stumbles, goes to ground, regains his feet and then scores the try? His opposition has clearly gained an advantage by the contact so back for scrum?

That's one of those cases where I am glad that sole arbiter of what is and is not an advantage is me.

Ian_Cook
13-04-08, 11:04
How does a player benefit from being impeded?.......

I have been waiting for someone to ask this OB

The attacking player is running down the sideline, a cover defender is coming across, lining up a tackle to put him in touch. At the crucial moment, a spectator sticks his foot out and trips the ball carrier who falls to the ground causing the would be tackler to miss him going over the top into the spectators. The tripped player is not tackled, so quickly gets back to his feet and runs around behind the posts to score a try.

The player has benefited from being impeded because in all likelihood, had he not been tripped up by the spectator, he would have been tackled into touch

OB..
13-04-08, 12:04
Ian_Cook - yes, but the covering defender was not in the original scenario.

chopper15
13-04-08, 13:04
I have been waiting for someone to ask this OB

The attacking player is running down the sideline, a cover defender is coming across, lining up a tackle to put him in touch. At the crucial moment, a spectator sticks his foot out and trips the ball carrier who falls to the ground causing the would be tackler to miss him going over the top into the spectators. The tripped player is not tackled, so quickly gets back to his feet and runs around behind the posts to score a try.

The player has benefited from being impeded because in all likelihood, had he not been tripped up by the spectator, he would have been tackled into touch


Wouldn't be the same if the ball carrier had just tripped over a sod?

Phil E
13-04-08, 19:04
Wouldn't be the same if the ball carrier had just tripped over a sod?

Depends if the little sod was on the other team or not?

Davet
14-04-08, 13:04
It's still try awarded as far as I am concerned - and so long as I've got the whistle my decision is final.